crazy talk. consider yourself warned. >> it's a thing. ♪ president obama convened his national security team at the white house today. there are plenty of topics to speak about under that umbrella. we're told the conversation was egypt, mainly the $1.5 billion in aid we sent them. the administration is deciding whether to cut that off given the military's crackdown of supporters of deposed president mohamed morsi. meantime, the u.n. security council is convening an emergency meeting right now regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in syria. their focus is on reports that hundreds of civilians were killed near damascus when government forces used chemical weapons on them. the white house today condemned any use of chemical weapons. we're told the president is being updated about developments throughout the region. >> we've seen these reports.

we've consulted with some of our partners in it the region about these reports. but that is why we are calling for this u.n. investigation to be conducted. there is an investigation team that's on the ground in syria right now. we are hopeful that the assad regime will follow through on what they have claimed previously, that they are interested in a credible investigation. >> for the rest of this week, however, the president turns his focus squarely on the economy, with a bus tour and series of campaign-style stump speeches. tomorrow he's in upstate new york. he'll wrap up alongside vice president joe biden friday afternoon in scranton. now, i'm told michael scott will not be there, but organizers are hoping for an appearance by dwight schrute. jonathan allen, those are references to the hit nbc show "the office." i want to make sure you're in on -- >> i've watched once or twice. >> you've seen it? well, nbc humor, it's big around

here. let's start with what's going on in congress. you have all this discussion about cutting off aid. one big reason for that has nothing to do with egypt or the camp david accord. it's the fact that congress's main foreign policy tool is funding. they don't have a constitutional role in a lot of other activities other than if you actually get to the point of authorizing the use of force. is that the main reason we're hearing so much about the economic aid, or do you think there's more to it? >> i think that's a big reason. certainly gives a voice to folks like senator patrick leahy. he already had a plan to do a phased giving of u.s. aid in the future to egypt based on their ability to come up with some sort of democratically elected government in the wake of the coup that shall not be called a coup by the administration. so he's also the one that most recently said that the white house had turned off the spigot. the white house, of course,

saying there isn't a spigot, that it doesn't just go off and on. if you watch these press briefings, they're impossible to follow. nobody can understand what the white house's position is. i think the reason is, it's hard to articulate. >> jonathan, let's transition to the budget battles. obviously, as you know, the gop divide over the budget, it's entertaining to watch play out, but in all seriousness, this could be quite problematic and dangerous come the fall. you have republicans that reject the idea of a government shutdown outright. senator john mccain has said over and over this is a nonstarter. you also have conservative senators like mike lee and ted cruz who won't back down. let's take a listen to what senator ted cruz had to say. >> what happens next is president obama and harry reid are going to scream and yell those mean, nasty republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government.

what has to happen after that is we've got to do something that conservatives haven't done in a long time. we've got to stand up and win the arguments. [ cheers and applause ] >> jonathan, how do you see this playing out? >> look, shut-down politics haven't played well for republicans thus far. >> but they haven't won the argument, jonathan. that's all they got to do. just stand up. don't blink. win the argument. then it'll go well for them. >> ted cruz makes a good point, which is the republicans haven't taken the government or, you know, the united states' economy off a cliff quite yet. therefore, haven't had the opportunity to argue as the government is bleeding on the floor that it was good to throw it off the cliff. so, you know, we haven't seen that argument yet. maybe ted cruz wins that argument. i think that the republican leaders in congress don't feel

comfortable staking themselves on that, particularly if it's framed in the context of obama care, of shutting down the government in order to deny obama care. i think most of the public has moved on from that debate, except for those who are very tightly tied into, you know, the political right and political left and would like to see their government function in one way or another. >> really nice to see you back on the show. it's been too long. i've been hating watching this defund obama care national tour because there's been beauties like this. >> why is it that every reporter in the media, and a significant perctage of republicans assume with an impasse, that president obama will never, ever, ever give up his principles so republicans have to give up theirs? if you have an impasse, you want

to know one side or the other has to blink. how do we win this fight? don't blink! >> is it a staring contest? that's why they don't want to blink? seems to me like custer's last stand, they know they're going to lose the war. politically, there's value in having this fight because that's what the base wants. can they lose legislatively and still win politically? >> and don't blink, jonathan. >> i think you can -- look, sometimes you can lose legislatively and win politically or vice versa. the thing is you got to pick your battles. i think that most of the relationsh republican leadership in washington does not believe this. i'm sitting in philadelphia right now. the very conservative republican senator from pennsylvania pat toomey was quoted as saying that's justshutting down the

government isn't the right way to go. he was one of the bomb throwers. he was looking for ways to defund things. he say, look, this isn't the right way for us to go about getting at obama care. we should pick and choose the pieces of it that are best for republicans to try to -- >> but even if they don't actually shut it down, isn't there tremendous value in threatening to shut it down? >> well, sure. you never want to stop negotiating as a hard liner early. there's a value to that. there's a value to riling up the base. there's a value to getting the campaign funding. look, if you're ted cruz and you want to run for president as a conservative in 2016, then perhaps you will do things that move toward a shutdown. for most of the republicans in congress who want to be re-elected time and again, they'll have something different to think about. >> yeah, that'll play well in the general. >> i think that's exactly right. what you're getting at is this is essentially a selfish move on the part of ted cruz and not good for the republican party,

certainly not good for the country. but i want to ask -- >> well, i didn't say that. you said selfselfisselfish. >> but i want to ask you about what's going on with rick perry down in texas, looking for some of that sweet, sweet obama care money. for that, i mean critically needed funding for citizens of his state. this is a guy who's been at the front of the line in bashing the affordable health care act. are we going to see more and more republican governors who are realizing that going forward with at least some aspects of obama is care is good for their constituents and good for them politically? >> it's harder and harder for governors to argue that their citizens shouldn't get money that is being sent from the federal government without them taking any further action. i mean, it's just a tough stand to take. i think -- look, you'll see some who think it's politically advantageous to them on a

national level, continue to say that they don't want the money. but i think for the most part you're going to see a little bit of movement on that. like we were talking about before, you talk tough and then at the end perhaps you compromise a little bit. i think you're going to see that -- i think you've already seen it to a large extent with a lot of the republican governors having accepted this expansion of medicaid and having accepted some of the other parameters of the obama care law, particularly the starting of health exchanges, sometimes in conjunction with the federal government, sometimes on their own. i think, you know, a lot of republican governors are reluctant to go with obama care, but also see it as something they can't really reject. >> yeah, jonathan allen, you didn't bring your tie, but you brought your a-game. we appreciate it. >> i appreciate that. thanks, guys. up next, we have the bradley manning sentencing. he received 35 years, but it's far from case closed. we're going to hear the pentagon's side on this important, important sentencing

today, and the view of these events from one of the supporters rallying behind the wiki leaker as "the cycle" rolls on. (announcer) scottrade knows our clients trade and invest their own way. with scottrade's smart text, i can quickly understand my charts, and spend more time trading. their quick trade bar lets my account follow me online so i can react in real-time. plus, my local scottrade office is there to help. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. voted "best investment services company."

no-charge scheduled maintenance. check. and here's the kicker... 0% apr for 60 months. and who got it? this guy. and who got it? this guy. and who got it? this guy. that's right... [ male announcer ] it's the car you won't stop talking about. ever. hurry in to the volkswagen best. thing. ever. event.

and get 0% apr for 60 months, now until september 3rd. that's the power of german engineering.

after leaking 700,000 secret u.s. documents and waiting 1,094 days to receive his punishment, today wiki leaker bradley manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. that's far below the 90 possible and less than the 60 years prosecutors originally asked for. of course, higher than what manning's defense team was hoping for. he'll be eligible for parole in

about ten years. that's not enough for manning supporters who will gather outside the gate of the white house tonight demanding a presidential pardon. we'll get that side in a moment. as for the government,man's actions were serious. he's responsible for the largest leaks of classified documents in american history. he exposed battlefield reports and state department cables. we want to start with you. what is the reaction from the pentagon? >> well, the reaction from the pentagon so far, it depends on who you talk to. some think the sentence is too light. some think it's just right. what's interesting about this case, clearly, as you mentioned, abby, bradley manning broke the law by illegally dispersing classified information to somebody not within the realm of the legal process here in the pentagon to possess it. so that is a violation of the law. but you can tell by the way that

the military judge, that she wasn't buying the prosecution's argument that he aided the enemy. in fact, she found bradley manning not guilty of that most serious charge. it also appears that she didn't buy the argument that bradley manning caused serious damage or somehow threatened united states security or intelligence. after all, the prosecution had asked for 60 years. she gave bradley manning 35. as you say, eligible for parole within ten years. he could be out within seven years for good conduct while being held at the military prison there in ft. levinworth. the civil libertarians are up in arms, however, because they think this will have a very chilling effect on future leakers or whistleblowers. they're calling it the snowden effect, after edward snowden, who released all that nsa information and then sought refuge outside the country. so there's a deep concern that because many feel that this

country in part relies on leaks to reveal any wrongdoing or misgivings within our government that this trial alone and some very aggressive prosecutions by the obama administration are going to dry up leaks about u.s. wrongdoing. >> thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate it. >> you bet. >> joining us now is bradley manning's friend. he's the former spokesman for the bradley manning support network. thanks for joining us. as you know, the country has been extremely divided on manning's case. just to give people a sense, a recent poll shows only 13% say manning should not be sentenced to prison at all. more responders agreed that manning was in the wrong, not necessarily a traitor, but they're incredibly divided on the number of years they think he should serve in prison. i'm curious, zach, what your response is from the verdict today. >> well, i think, you know, in light of the tremendous amount

of time that he was facing -- you know, initially upwards of over a century in prison -- i think relatively speaking you can say this is somewhat of a tactical victory. but there's no question here that what happened today was a miscarriage of justice. i think when we roll back the clock about 40 years and look at the last big prosecution of a major whistleblower, daniel elsberg, who leaked the pentagon papers, that case was thrown out of court after the government broke into his psychiatrist's office to try to get into his medical records. so in case, we had much more egregious violations of manning's rights. not only the time he was held in kuwait and the marine brig, but also due process violations. the case should have been thrown out. so that's why we're going to be pressing forward with this case to have this sentence commuted.

>> you mentioned daniel elsberg. as you mentioned, that was thrown out and he received no jail time accordingly. but other big prosecutions of leakers in the national security context have also had relatively lower prison terms in sam morison, two years. thomas drake, who was also a surveillance leaker, struck a plea deal in 2011 with no prison time. others getting anywhere from 20 months to 2 1/2 years. so as people try to process this information, the actual sentence of 35 years isn't double or triple what we've seen in the recent era, it's, you know, literally ten times. that shows that even though the judge rejected some of these claims and we now have a judicial finding from a military court that there was not grave national security harm, the country can continue to debate that, but it's pretty interesting to have a military judge find that was not the cause of bradley manning's

leaks. what do you make of this rather long sentence by any objective historical standard? >> well, you know, brad has already spent about three years in custody now without trial. that's longer than some of the people involved in the massacre in vietnam spent under house arrest. you know, as brad's attorney noted after court today, he's represented people who have, you know, murdered people and done all kinds of terrible things who have gotten far less time, but then in this case, we have someone who was clearly motivated out of a sense of duty to his fellow americans to try to expose wrongdoing, and in retaliation for that, he's being given this extremely harsh sentence. so you're absolutely right. it doesn't make sense. >> zach, i think there's a lot right to what you're saying.

people have been tortured in recent american history and not suffered any prison time for that. there are kriticcritics on the side who say the military is a special organization. they keep us safe. if you have every soldier able to take information and give it to whoever they want, then you're sort of having every soldier having veto power over the military functioning. you're challenging the ability of the military to even be able to function in society. what would you say to that? >> well, i think that there's a number of issues involved in this case. there's a massive problem with overclassification where the government is just reflexively classifying any number of things, not just war crimes, but stuff that isn't even interesting at all. so i think that, you know, that's something we need to look at there. but, you know, brad also didn't really have any recourse.

there was at one point that he tried to go expose, for example, that there were iraqi academics that were being turned over to the prime minister's security forces, and he was almost certain they were being tortured. he tried to go report this to his commanding officer, and his commanding officer told him to shut up. so i think that this is the kind of experience that countless numbers of people in the military have come across. so really, there isn't any other option these days than to rely on our first amendment right to go to the freedom of the press. that's really the life blood of national security journalism, these sorts of leaks. you know, they happen every day. leon panetta revealed one of the members of s.e.a.l. team six to a hollywood producer. he didn't get 35 years in prison. he got a $3 million book deal.

so i think, you know, if the administration really wants to prosecute everyone who's made a leak with 35 years in prison, i don't really know how many people are going to be left in washington after that crackdown is over. >> well, zach, one of the defenses that you and others of bradley, other supporters of bradley have said is that the release of the documents, there's no proof it harmed national security. as you know, bradley manning read a short sentencing statement in which he essentially apologized saying, i'm sorry for the unintended consequences of my actions. when i made these decisions, i believed i was going to help people, not hurt people. how do you think that bradley himself views his actions today? >> well, you know, i never have had the chance to actually meet brad. i just wanted to clarify. we do share a number of friends in common, however. among the circle of people, you've got, you know, a whole

spectrum of politically engaged individuals ranging from advocates and activists like myself to people with high-level security clearances just like brad. so, you know, there's no question in my mind that there are people in government who really do care about wanting to protect innocent people. now, we have to remember that there are large parts of this trial that were conducted entirely in secret. so we can only speculate as to what may have been said during, you know, these parts of the trial. i think it's important to note that we can't rule out the possibility that the administration in responding to the wikileaks disclosures didn't take some additional measures to try to protect certain individuals, but i think it's important to drive home the point, the fact that was established clearly in court and that was accepted by the judge, which is that no one has been harmed or killed as a result of wikileaks. >> well, zach, thank you so much for joining us.

we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. up next, the dangerous item now banned from sports stadiums. listen up, krystal ball. diaper bags. there's much to spin about up next. [ male announcer ] this is claira.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for her, she's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with her all day to see how it goes. [ claira ] after the deliveries, i was okay. now the ciabatta is done and the pain is starting again.

more pills? seriously? seriously. [ groans ] all these stops to take more pills can be a pain. can i get my aleve back? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

the news cycle begins with an update on vice president joe biden's son, beau, who is undergoing testing at a houston hospital right now. sources familiar with his condition, though, not his doctors, tell nbc news that beau has a mass on his brain that could mean anything from an aneurysm to a hemorrhage to a tumor. it's unlikely we'll know anything for a few more days. and it's not off we get a peek inside the nation's highest court. if your view is old fashioned, you're kind of right. justice elena kagan spoke at

brown university. she informed the justices don't use facebook, they're not blogging or retweeting. in fact, they don't use e-mail. the court prefers written memos on ivory paper delivered by so-called chamber aides. consider it justice old school style. newark, new jersey, mayor and u.s. senate candidate cory booker picked up a pretty big endorsement today. let's face it, doesn't get much bigger than president obama. in a statement, the president praised booker for dedicating his life to building hope and opportunity. if he wins next month's special election, booker would be the only elected african-american senator who was not appointed to the seat serving currently. president obama was the last to win election outright back in 2004. that is your news cycle. now ari kicks us off with the spin. >> thank you, krystal. >> you're welcome. any time. >> i have a public service announcement for all you nfl-loving ladies out there. >> what? >> like, i don't know, maybe our very own sporty spice, krystal ball. >> oh, my god. i did not approve that.

>> this is real talk. there is a new controversial nfl policy. it was out today. it targets women who actually carry purses into games. the new rule would only allow, quote, small clutch bags, approximately the size of the hand or a hand clutching something. that's why it's called a clutch bag, ladies. now, that also means no camera bags, no diaper bags, no backpacks. nfl officials say the policy is meant to provide a safer environment for the public and women to speed up security checks into stadiums. obviously, this has led to parodies. >> squinting your eyes in the sun because you don't have any of your sunglasses. living with sweaty bangs because you don't have a bobby pin on you. you can't see if you have something in your teeth because you don't have at least three sephora mirrors that came with gift cards. >> these are the challenges women face in light of the nfl's recent bag regulations. the nfl has restricted women to carrying their personal items in purses the side of their hands.

>> we take these rules as a personal attack on women and our freedom of choice. we're tired of men telling us what to do with our bags. >> my purse, my choice. >> those are the comedians lauren and colleen. their video has already garnered more than 300,000 youtube views. youtube, for toure's benefit, is an online video porthole. women account for more than four out of every ten football fans. >> used to, anyway. >> take it away. clearly you have thoughts. >> she's absolutely right. the nfl wants more women to come to the games, be involved in the sport. this is saying, hey, you are welcome in the hyper masculine world of an nfl game with caveats. you can't bring all your stuff. we know your bag, perhaps, is sacred to you. you can't bring it. there has to be some middle ground where you can have a better fan experience. do women carry clutches during

the day? usually, no. clutches are for evening. maybe the sunday night nfl game because they play games on sunday nights now, ari. you may not know that. >> i didn't know that. >> and they're giving out these transparent bags as well. >> not cute. >> remind me of something your husband brought up the other day. the way to stop "stop and frisk" is to give black and brown men transparent pants. >> at least transparent pockets. >> it's a total joke. sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. >> all right. well, i'm all for feeling safe, but you have to look at how it's been done so far. i mean, has it been problematic? do people not feel safe? they have two lines, one for people with purses, so it can move quickly. i haven't really seen a problem with this. women carry a lot of useful things that would be problematic in term of people not wanting to go to the games. this is a family affair. football has always been a

family affair. you think, if i'm going to bring three of my kids, i could only imagine having been to a number of tampa bucs games where it's so hot, you need sunscreen. you need sunglasses, not to mention keys, your wallet, cell phone. if you're a mom -- i'll let krystal take it from here. >> i challenge anyone with a small child to make it out of the house more than two blocks without a bag at least this size. you got to have your diapers and wipes and formula and blankie and at least one change of clothes. it goes on and on and on. so i think this is not so much of a war on women as a war on parents. >> can i just bring this up? my sister has juvenile diabetes. we talk about this clear bag that makes up for smaller bags. you think she's going to carry around shots, whatever else she needs to make sure she stays healthy? that's embarrassing for people to do. >> how about hygiene products? you want that in a transparent bag? >> i'm someone that has female friends. >> that's a lie.

>> no, you don't. >> they're very passionate -- >> probably a good point to wrap. >> i'm going to finish this point. they're very passionate about the purse. i mean, some of them are like mobile hoarders. there's so much that goes into the purse. >> you just insulted all these fake female friends you have. >> these made-up, imaginary friends. look, they're on facebook. i haven't met all of them. no, i just think when you go after people's bags, right, you're going after something very personal. it could be very much a passion. if you don't have a good reason and it's targeted by basically gender. >> just a little check. >> shame on you, nfl. now, we got to leave it here. that's a saying on "the cycle." if we get a close-up of krystal with the bag, we got to leave it here. >> just make it awkward. >> we have to leave it here. i'm not kidding. now, up next, lady, stop your whining. apparently the real -- >> oh, that's insulting. >> now, before you light me up

with tweets for double offenses in this segment, know that one is not from me. it's according to a provocative author who's going to join us next. we'll see where this goes as "the cycle" rolls on with music picked by you, our facebook friends. it starts with something little, like taking a first step. and then another. and another. and if you do it. and your friends do it. and their friends do it... soon we'll be walking our way to awareness, support and an end to alzheimer's disease. and that? that would be big. grab your friends and family and start a team today. register at alz.org because all these whole grains

aren't healthy unless you actually eat them ♪ multigrain cheerios. also available in delicious peanut butter. healthy never tasted so sweet. does your dog food have? also available in delicious peanut butter. 18 percent? 20? new purina one true instinct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide.

i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive.

i know it may be hard to tell by watching this show, where time is divvied up evenly and i fully respect everyone else's opinions, but out there in the real world, things are not quite always fair. as our next guest says, there is a war against boys going on right now. that's right, krystal. she says schools are becoming risk averse, feeling centric, and competition free.

as they do that, they're further isolating and stigmatizing young boys for being young boys. now, i'm sure some people, potentially people at this very desk, will point out the huge wage gap and ceo percentages and say it seems men are doing just fine. well, our next guest has a response for that, too. here with us is christina summers, author of "the war against boys." you point out rough and tumble play, which boys love which is more and more pushed aside in schools and outlawed in schools, that's intrinsic to young boyness. how is it beneficial to boys to be able to engage in that rough-and-tumble play? >> it's the natural play of little boys everywhere. girls like it, too, but boys do it much more. increasingly, our schools are failing to make a distinction between aggression and high-spirited play. so little boys, almost the day

they enter school, exist in a kind of disapproval. it's very sad because education has never been more important to a young person's prospects, and today girls are so much stronger educationally and boys are languishing. >> christina, let's talk about these little boys. as you point out, boys are 4.5 times more likely to be suspended, which obviously lowers their chances of graduation from high school by 17%. you say this is in part because of the zero-tolerance policy and lack of research. this starts a the an early age, even kindergarten, where they're getting graded on how they act. >> right. >> i'm just wondering, is this boys behaving badly, as we know they do, or is this really about stricter policies in place? >> i think it's about sort of a

pathologizing normal behavior. there are schools that say we should change tug of war to tug of peace. little boys don't take that well to these changes. as i said, their natural play is that high-spirited, sort of mock fighting. this is disallowed. this is what's worse. in their imaginative writing and their narrative play, little boys in preschool and gi kindergarten will engage in fantasy play with superheroes and rescuing good guys and killing bad guys. there are many schools where this is forbidden, and they're punished and even suspended. so that's what i mean when they exist sort of under a cloud of disapproval. >> well, christina, as toure was referencing, 4% of fortune 500 ceos are women. on and on and on. the men still seem to be doing pretty well.

are we actually seeing that the tug of peace is really, you know, damaging men for the long term? >> you have to look at the world today. where are these boys going to be in 10, 15, 20 years? it has never been more important, as i said, to get a good education. girls are getting it. boys are increasingly not. i don't think anyone thinks we're going to close the wage gap by ignoring the literacy needs of little boys. and the other thing to remember is there's a small code ri of very successful men at the high echelons of achievement. but at the extreme of failure, you also find more men, in fact, vastly more men. you have to look at the total picture. when you do that, you see that for young men, it's very dangerous for many of them to be disaffected from school, disengaged. we have ways to help them. other countries are way ahead of us in addressing the needs of boys. we have to catch up. >> so we haven't seen the

effects totally yet. what you're hypothesizing is the boys in school now may suffer down the road. >> yes, but i think even now if you look at college graduates, you'll see younger women, if you do controls for younger women and younger men, the wage gap is closed. in some studies, it shows young women are earning more. >> until they have children. >> yes, but again, do you want to neglect the literacy needs of boys? >> no, of course not. >> you want to punish boys because women are staying is home with children? i mean, we have to be rational about it and fair. i became a feminist in the '70s because i didn't like male chauvinism, but what i see now is a kind of reverse, a kind of intolerance for boys and a kind of female chauvinism, if you will. all the programs in the schools -- i don't want to say all, but many are there to strengthen girls in math and science. i applaud those. those were effective. but where are the programs to strengthen boys in reading and writing to close the college

attendance gap, school engagement gap? we don't have them. >> all right. i see someone just saying, but i don't think the pay tree our i can is under threat. thank you so much. up next, before bob costas or marv albert, there was marty glikman. >> swish. >> swish. >> marty invented the game into the consciousness of america. >> i would talk like him. i'd walk like him. >> he had done something that hadn't been done before and hasn't been done since. >> a sneak peek at the new hbo documentary is next. oh this is soft. this is so so soft. hey hun, remember you only need a few sheets. hmph! [ female announcer ] charmin ultra soft is so soft you'll have to remind your family they can use less. ♪ charmin ultra soft is made with extra cushions that are soft and more absorbent. plus you can use four times less. hope you saved some for me. mhmm! you and the kids.

we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin ultra soft. 100% whole grain brown rice and wheat and bake it with real sweet potato or savory red bean? a new line of triscuit crackers with a delicious taste and a crispier crunch. brown rice triscuit. a new take on an old favorite. it guides you to a number that will change your it guides you to a number life: your sleep number setting. it will give you the soundest sleep you've ever had. it's a bed so intuitive it even knows you by name.

now it's easier than ever to experience deep, restful sleep with the sleep number bed's dualair technology. at the simple touch of a button, the sleep number mattress adjusts to your ideal level of comfort and support, with exceptional pressure relief on each side. experience the newest innovation from sleep number: the only bed that knows you. and there's only one place in the world you'll find the sleep number bed: at one of our 425 stores nationwide. where at our biggest sale of the year, every sleep number bed is on sale. queen mattresses now start at just $599 . and save an incredible 40% on the sleep number limited edition memory foam mattress sets. sleep number. comfort individualized.

the olympics has always been very political. now it's russia's anti-gay propaganda. before this, there was the 1980 boycott, tommy smith and john carlos in 1968. back in 1936, it was the berlin games and what they did to an 18-year-old marty glickman. >> when i beat the world's record holder at 60 yards, i realized i had a chance to make the olympic team. >> you can't say '36 olympics without thinking what the u.s. did to marty glickman. >> how could any person keep me from competing? >> the only two jewish members of the u.s. team were pulled from their events. it took the olympic committee 62 years to finally honor him with

a plaque in lieu of the gold medals he did not win. marty glickman went on to become an all-american football player at syracuse university and a legendary sportscaster, raising generations, that's plural, of new york sports fans. with us now is james friedman, the filmmaker behind the new hbo documentary "glickman." it debuts next monday exclusively on hbo. thank you so much for joining us. for those who don't know marty glickman or don't understand his impact, talk about how impactful and why he was so important in sportscasting. >> marty glickman was a legend dare sportscaster for the new york area. if you grew up as any kind of sports fan in the latter part of the 20th century, he was part of the sound track of your life. what some people don't know about marty is as a sportscaster, he revolutionized basketball radio play by play. many of the expressions used today by some of these

sportscasters were coined by marty glickman. the key, the lane, the mid-court stripe, his most famous one, swish. he gave a geography to the court. you didn't know where they were on the court. he gave a geography. smith dribbles up the right sideline, throws behind the back pass to the key and jones banks in a one-handed shot. as larry king so beautifully said in the film, he was television on radio. >> amazing. >> that 1936 olympics moment was huge in his life. he goes to germany and gets cut the day before the 4x100 team is about to start. what's the real story behind why he was cut and what impact did that have on him? >> you know, there are different versions of the story. some people believe that one of the track coaches for the u.s. olympic team who was the usc track coach, it was politics and he put in his own two guys to run. what i believe is what marty's

story is, it was anti-semitism and, as was proven later, the head of the u.s. olympic committee then went on to become the head of the international committee. he later proven to be a nazi sympathizer. hitler, these were the nazi games. it was his myth of nazi ariane supremacy that jesse owens and all is the american black athletes were smashing to smither evens. i love that word. we should bring it back. and they will say that avery brundage, hitler did not want it seep two jewish people on the victory stand and brundage made sure that didn't happen. in the film, i also point out not just from a political point of view but from a financial point of view, two years later when the nazis were building the german embassy in washington, d.c. they awarded the construction contract to the brun and's company. >> how did scorsese get involved in this project? >> my film had shown at the

santa barbara film festival. i got a call from ari. one week later he was sitting in his office and he said you know who should see this film? martin scorsese. two days after that, i received an e-mail from marty saying i'd like to release it through my company at hbo. pretty much a typical tuesday in my life. >> and you listened to marv albert or bob costas or cheryl steiner, you're hearing marty glickman. >> there's a sequence in the film when it plays in front of an audience, i actually cut marty glickman, marv albert and mike breen all doing knick games 20 years apart in madison square garden to make it sound like one play. you hear the broadcasting tree of marty glickman. it's thrilling >> that is incredible. i watched it last night and it was a topic i didn't know much about it and i really enjoyed the film. thank you so much for joining

us. before we go, it's been five years since dr. king stood in front of thousands of people to tell them about his dream. this week we all took pictures saying how we are advancing the dream to see what we're doing. head over to our facebook page and let us know how you're advancing the dream. up next, ari is about to get all transparent on a story buried beneath the headlines. anncr: expedia is giving away a trip every day. where would you go? woman: 'greece.' woman 2: 'i want to go to bora bora.' man: 'i'd always like to go to china.'

anncr: download the expedia app and your next trip could be on us. expedia, find yours.

all your important legal matters in just minutes. protect your family... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

how do you define a terrorist? is it a person who murders civilians or attempts to or wants to? in the united kingdom, a law

from the year 2000 defines it as a person involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. if authorities suspect someone fits that definition, the law grants them special powers to suspend is the person's right and detain them to determine if the person is a terrorist. on sunday, uk authorities invoked that power for a pretty shocking detention. they held david marnd, a brazilian national and partner of glenn green wald without rights for nine hours at heathrow airport. the uk does not accuse miranda of being a terrorist. they knew who he was and they haven't offered any information to prove it took them nine hours to figure out that he wasn't a terrorist. instead, it looks like the uk exploited that special power for fighting terrorism in order to harass the husband of a journalist who has been reporting on government surveillance. in response, the very british politician who's wrote the terrorism act are decrying an the operation as an buse of

security power and an attempt to intimidate the press. today, miranda's lawyers went to court asking for a declaration that the detention was illegal and for the return of property seized by authorities. the incident is causing international outrage because abusing security powers to harass the press is an a hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships, not open democracies. yet, right here in the u.s. some prominent voices are defending the uk's action. first, critics say because miranda is not a professional reporter, he shouldn't have been carrying any materials for the garden. second, there's the aggressive allegation because classified material might be on his computer, miranda is basically a drug mule. here's how new yorker legal affairs expert jeffrey toobin explained it. >> i don't want to be unkind but he was a mule. he was given something, he didn't know what it was from one person to pass to another at the other end after airport. our prisons are full of drug mules. >> let's stop right there.

holding classified information for a reporter is not the same as swallowing a bag of heroin for a drug dealer. not only is that common sense, it's the law. think about it, if simply possessing classified information were automatically a crime, i would be speaking to you from a room full of criminals. in our newsroom, reporters and staff possess classified information and unauthorized government disclosures and materials. if you think about it, very few significant news stories are based on press rereleases alone. if you report on the government, sometimes you're going to report what it's not telling the public. as for miranda's professional status, it's beside the point. the police were acting on a specific authority for detaining suspected terrorists. from the information we have right now, it's clear they abused that power. so it doesn't matter what miranda does for a living. he has a right to due process and a right to counsel and a right not to be harassed by government officials who don't like the way his husband writes

about them. and by compromising those rights in a fake terrorism investigation, i think the uk actually compromised public safety twice. first, by undermining individual liberty and then by undermining the public trust that's essential for tough policing. and thus, we've seen this from the nation that gave us the magna carta, the basis for our constitution. let's make sure we don't follow their lead on this one. that does it for "the cycle." joy reid is in for martin today. >> important points. thank you guys. and good afternoon. i'm joy reid in for martin bashir. it's wednesday august 21st. america cannot end our deadly love affair with guns. we're following breaking news of a reported shooting in dekalb county, georgia. >> a teenager sneaks into an elementary school with an assault rifle. >> accused of